Alexander Hamilton is turning in his grave if he’s seeing what’s going on in this country with the press media burying the truth.
4 Likes
Is this the face of 2023 science?
I just read most of all 85 pages and have to say it isn’t for the average man to consume and get fired up about climate change and make the sacrifices that would have to be made to reach their goals. That is if the average man could ascertain what the goals are from the information given. The report to most folks comes across as the classic, If you can’t dazzle then with your brilliance then baffle them with your BS.
Page 84 may be the most important part of the whole report as it spells out some of the related goals of social justice and social equity. I always wonder when a scientific study about a possiable global extinction event has the least care about it being socially equitable.
Lets agree that the report is 100% the science and I see a lot in the report about the year 2050 being a bench mark where if we don’t have a handle well in place on the problem by then it might just be too late to start thinking about it. That’s only 27 years away and a real concern if you are a young person now with say a young family.
So tomorrow our elderly president announces a new governing body is being formed lets call it the commission on saving the world from manmade climate change. We will tell the people of America we wish to lead by example and we are hoping the rest of the world does the same.
Starting at once all nonessential use of energy will be stopped. No movies, sporting events, concerts, county fairs, auto racing, museums, boating, even paddling if to do so you have to drive a car or truck, eating out will also be severally limited to when needed not when wanted. Gas will be rationed to each persons needs. If you work you will get just enough for say a 30MPG car and enough for a weekly trip for shopping for food. Food sources will be totally reevaluated based around 2000 calories per day per person with meat protein replaced with plant protein. All animal farming will be shut down and farmers and factories will only be allowed to grow and produce enough food products for the population. Pets will be allowed but when their time comes no replacement pets will be allowed. They serve no purpose and consume resources. Homes will be limited to 200 sq ft per person and if you have a larger than that home the government will come in and alter it so no heating will go into grand spaces. Windows will be discouraged and covered over except for small areas to view outdoors. Homes will be insulted to max specs over the living areas and fuel to heat/cool will be rationed according government specs. Hotels and motels will for the most part all be shut down as there has to be approved reasons to travel. Motor homes and campers will be taken to use as homeless shelters. If you have more than one TV they will all be taken and a 32” TV will be max size allowed. Every home will get all their information and entertainment off the internet. Water will be the only drink needed and will be rationed. Anything containing alcohol will be done. Making such products consumes great energy. People will be employed just to do essential things like food and clothing. If you are some kind of luxury business like a opera singer or actor you are consuming energy and not contributing.
People not conforming will have to be dealt with. People starting forest fires or lighting building on fire like we have seen the last few years will be found guilty and put to death. It has to be done. One forest fire can undo the sacrifice of 100’000 good people.
Of course this will put millions of people out of work but they were taking energy and doing no good. The movie star can live in 200 sq ft just as well as Bill Gates will and they can take their free time and plant a garden and can foods like everyone else.
The good part will be the rest of the world will no longer hate us for having a better life and there will be greater social equity. The CO2 we produce will fall rapidly with all the industry closing and the average guy consuming so much less. Our impact will be small but once the rest of the developed world sees how good we are doing they will self implode quickly. The ice caps will recover the seas will recede. 2050 will come and go and people will love the simple life of less. Who knows people might start reading books again. E-books of course as paper is far too valuable to use for books.
I doubt there will be any social resistance to doing all this as we will post the IPCC AR6 long report and give them a couple days to think about it before we throw the switch on the 21 century. It will be like 1890 only with the internet.
When do we start?
2 Likes
Sounds like you feel you have a good handle on the science. And your ready to move onto what to do about it. My job is done, smile.
2 Likes
Must exclude the hollywoods. Method acting, lavish lifestyles to enhance acting and to maintain image. Of course that includes condemning all waterfront propert as flood zones.
Not to mention the mockingbirds.
(Rollin’, rollin’, rollin’. Keep ole Alex rollin’!)
Or that Lin-Manuel took him up an octave and a half!
2 Likes
Lots of dogs burying lots of bones,
cherry-picked from bastard brothers,
they pace truth’s garden, in holes they moan.
Cognitive dissonance tunes by its own fork.
Dis harmonic thrum, pull strings with right torque,
so very old tune has staid key to ears,
with a d.c. al coda white noise to drown fears
3 Likes
Who is burying what truths? Left-leaning media burying right-leaning truths, and right-leaning media burying left-leaning truths? True, media companies are as different as they can be, but one thing they have in common is the profit motive. They all want to attract more viewers, listeners, readers, and ad dollars!, For companies that at least try to report news factually, doesn’t it make more sense to offer compelling arguments in support of their POV than it does to trying to bury somebody else’s?
Dont do that!
MSM is so bias it’s mind boggling .
When you realize that the news is laced with government propaganda directed at US citizens then you know the news can’t be trusted. The Soviet Union was famous for Pravda. Well we have our own Pravda. The Mainstream Media and their network cohorts.
1 Like
BINGO we have a 
WINNER
LACED & CONTROLLED & BULLIED & INTIMIDATED.
1 Like
“Another” would indicate there was a first. There is not!
About half of what we are told are total lies, and the other half is deliberately interpreted to fit an agenda of political control.
Figures don’t lie but liars can sure figure.
2 Likes
I understand the Insider’s business model. It’s based on revenue from sponsored content in which sponsors are given editorial control over their stories. It’s neither good nor bad, just different in that that the purpose is to promote the sponsor’s products or interests.
But how do other for-profit media companies with more traditional business models benefit financially from lacing their product with “government propaganda directed at US citizens”? Unlike Pravda, US media companies, from the NY Times on the left to the NY Post on the right, need to attract an audience that advertisers want to reach in order to stay in business. I doubt many advertisers want to be seen as stooges for government propaganda. Or is the government paying them secretly?
I would like to thank this thread and all the posters as it did force me to look at the issue deeper. Not being able to see deeply into all the issues I can still evaluate options. If the science is as bad and doom is just around the corner as some say then my belief is the population of the world will not have the will to solve the issue in time to maintain the status quo let alone reverse what has been already put in play without using some still not yet invented tech. My thoughts now are using what we have going now will likely cause as much problems, perhaps economic as they will solve.
If I take the advice of scientists like Richard Lindzen or Steve Koonin both true scientists their advice for the future is more moderate and a future outlook that I can resolve to live with. I tried hard to find counter arguments to what they conclude and instead of arguments based in science I see supposedly “science” not a scientfic rebuttal rather name calling and of them being deniers without valid science even when coming from scientific sources.
The third option we all have is broken into two groups the first being just total denial and put our heads in the sand knowing nothing and not caring. The second group is believing the worst without any information other than it is what my group believes or totally based around what the media you happen to watch and believe is telling you to think. Again knowing nothing but being sure you are correct. Unfortunately a very large percentage fall into these two groups.
So for me I’m solidly in the optimistic center in my mind at this point. When I hear stuff like the UN director telling me because we are having the hottest July known to man it is proof positive. When fall and winter come along and we have a colder than normal couple weeks or when next year July isn’t so bad as this year, it just kind of convinces me more weather is not climate. When my neighbor says it I assume they are in the second half of group 3, when the director of the UN climate change says it it makes me wonder what’s up.
Same here. Thanks for making the point.
1 Like
If you bothered to look at the media bias chart, you would see where most of those you list fall. Note that only the reporting outlets at the apex of the chart (in the green box) actually report news using front line journalists, fact checking and editorial oversight The rest mainly offer opinions (often biased or distorted to conform to a specific agenda) on news reported by real journalists and original sources. MOST of the media sources on the chart are actually more “info-tainment” (which has ALWAYS been the case with Fox News, the most prevalent offender in representing the pablum they broadcast as “news”).
This is off topic as to climate change but in some ways exactly on target as most of what most people know about climate change comes to them thru the polarized media they follow.
I have thought about this a lot and for the longest time I saw the dived grow and pondered is this a natural occurrence or is it somehow motivated by outside powers. In the beginning I really believed people were just dived in thoughts and ideas and reading and watching what appeals to their beliefs. With time it became clear the media was forcing the divide wider with how it reported every story. Then I started noticing there may be 5 news outlets not at all connected to the same owner, but the wording was all exactly the same like they were being fed a script by some higher power controlling things.
It is hard for me to buy into things like this but at some point a person with an open mind becomes overwhelmed that there is no other answer.
When I hear people talk that have came here from old soviet block countries and lived thru much worse and they have no problem at all buying in to the media being controlled.
For anyone saying Fox News is the worst offender and CNN and MSNBC are fair and balanced has a serious bias imbalance. We all hold our own version of what is truth though.
2 Likes
Did you even read the article? It’s so easy to attack sources when something doesn’t fit a particular world view. That way we can close that door without giving it another thought. First off Business Insider didn’t write the article. It was authored by Buzzfeed so commence with criticizing Buzzfeed. A few minutes spent researching the topic will show it was also widely report.
As far as government influence in media, all one would have to do is look at who the talking heads are. Politicians go right from polical office to become news anchors. Many of the guests are from the government as well including organizations such as the state department, fbi, cia.
1 Like